To disagree with 3/4 year old children having more childcare paid for

[ReallyTired]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24199711

I feel the goverment should pay for education rather than childcare. 15 hours a week is enough to meet a child's educational needs for pre school. At a time of austerity, I feel there are bigger spending priorities. (Providing enough school places for children who are of complusory school age!)

If you choose to have chidlren then you should pay to look after them. I feel that labour's set of proposals are totally unaffordable and making the "banks" pay will damage the UK financial sector long term.

All these election bribes do not help the UK in the long term.

You can say if you can't afford childcare, don't have kids but I feel the same way about people bringing home £50k whinging about "their" reduced CB and the cost of school shoes. I mean, in this day and age and in this culture, we all wear shoes and kids grow.....!

It seems some people are happy to take what they want out of the system e.g. child benefit for years but whinge when a policy benefits someone else.

Why is it so necessary to own a house though in this country? It's not the norm in other countries and those government don't jump at subsidising house ownership.

They are getting bankers and hedge fund managers to pay for the childcare as they all live in mansions!!

This would be a huge help to me and my family. I don't 'choose' work over time with my children. We both work because we need to pay a mortgage, childcare and eat healthily. Believe me, that costs a lot in itself.

Yes, in an ideal world, I'd like to go PT. However, let's all say it like it is- I'd be more at risk of redundancy, overlooked for promotions and unlikely to be very motivated.

My mum was a single parent and worked. She had little money and we were left with some 'dodgy' child care provision. I have ensured I've visited the nursery my children are at and built rapport with the staff and managers. This costs a lot though, better care equals higher rates. Well worth it though.

There's nothing wrong with sahp or working parents. However to be controversial, I view sahp as a a job, it's very hard work. However if this was given as a universal credit, that would mean sahp get more time off than working parents. So I would question how that was fair.....

IhateGeorge

Sorry to disagree but yes people in receipt of WTC can buy a house. We have bought 2 out right and going for our third soon.
Before the faces come out, houses are cheap round here.

How economically will reducing the cost of living whilst paying a living wage work?

Where will the money come from to increase wages yet decrease the cost if food etc??

Yes tax credits subsidies businesses Madamecastafiore allowing the private sector to rake in profits. Wages have not kept pace with either rising profits or cost of living.

I think this is a good idea, it won't benefit me, I'm over the worst thankfully. I was in that group that couldn't afford to work and pay for childcare and couldn't really afford not to work. I was lucky in that my mother a 70s feminist helped us financially. She was a supporter of the wages for housework campaign en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages_for_housework along with others like Selma James.

I don't believe that 25 hrs provision for 3yr olds is seriously going to undermine the social value of mothering.

I personally think we need to retain choice extending that principle to all women. We need SAHM to receive a benefit/wage of sorts that replaces CB. It should be paid to the stay at home parent not according to the number of children and paid for a max/limited time say 6-7 yrs max. The valuable contribution they make should be recognised. It can only be recognised in financial terms under capitalism, so money it is !

We also need a progressive tax system that disallows such huge inequalities of wealth and policies to tackle wages and the cost of living.

I agree with others like ihategeorge who say that just making a token amount of childcare available is papering over the cracks. It is, but its a step in the right direction.

It's not necessary to own a house Madame, but renting is becoming a more and more difficult and expensive option for many. When you can be asked to leave on a whim, have your rent increased year on year and be made to put up with some nasty and in some cases unsafe interior and exterior issues, people don't feel safe and secure enough to raise their young families. People who rent will also have to fund their rent when they retire too. This bit scares the life out of me.

Assuming the people referring to WFTC actually mean WTC, I don't see why "People claiming this would not be in a position to buy a house at all." Why wouldn't they?

What candycoatedwaterdrops said. Its odious to see. People against policies that will benefit others, whilst knowing in many ways theyve benefitted from the system themself.

Wages for housework? Who actually was supposed to be paying the wages. It was a mad idea.

Morethanpotatoprints......as a dual income family I do not expect subsidised childcare. I would like what is being offered to actually be useable.

Now that living costs have reached the level they have, it is no longer a choice but necessity that both parents work.

We (like many other dual income families) have no choice but to be a dual income family, as one income would not support us. We would love to have the choice of being a single income family with one of us as SAHP but it is not financially viable.

Secondly, what a viewpoint re: "if you can't afford the childcare, don't have the children" .....so in your world only the rich and by rich I mean earning upwards of at least 60 grand can have children. So only the rich can have children? We need children....they are the workers of the future who will pay your pension, pay taxes etc.

I certainly do not think of SAHP as lazy- as the mother of 2 young children I know how challenging parenting is......if you can afford not to work, then that's great and you're obviously in a great position to be able to make that choice but please recognise it isn't a choice available to a great many people.

"I am sure we can import immigrants to wipe our arses and pay for our state pensions when we are older."

fuck off.

love,
an immigrant

Madame, if governments didn't keep subsidising everything, then the cost of living would fall. House prices were falling, until the government stepped in with it's help to sell policies. Costs will fall to what the majority can afford to pay with no government intervention. The problem is that they just can't keep their sticky beaks out and just let people earn and spend their own money

Mistress - that's absolutely the right word: odious. It's so totally self seeking.

Frankly the full education system needs to be re-done. We should be looking to the scandinavian countries. Their citizens paid huge taxes, but they are spend in Education better than we do. To start with, the nurseries are pretty much state run, teachers there are professionals with degrees in many cases and are paid a good decend wage. Parents pay for what they can afford and there is a cap to it, so you don't see horrible monthly fees of £1500 per month like in many places in London. Their Education systems work as they always come 1st in the rankings by countries. They give importance to the early years and a good start in live for all, no matter their background or family money. And this moves across the rest of the academic years.

It is very lovely to say, if you can't afford kids, don't have them. Whoever thinks that, hasn't got any empathy. We live in society, I don't like my taxes going to cure people that have been smoking all their life for example, but hey, we live in a society and my taxes also are going to help to pay pensions for maybe the father or mother of people of the person who opened this discussion. My kids maybe will contribute with their taxes in paying for her/his nursing care and so on.

I don't have family or friends around that can help me with childcare, my OH is just on the 40% tax break, I was earning a decend wage, pre-having a kid, and although we saved during my pregnancy, we are basically forced out of London, because the childcare cost, moving back closer to relatives so we can live a bit better, if we stay in London, there is no point for me to come back to work, as all my salary will go to pay childcare. We have been working very hard, paying our taxes, we do not own a house, and we are not entitled to any kind of benefits or help, so I'm pushed away from work and as a consecuence of contributing with my taxes to society because this childcare mess and cost. Do you think is fair?? I don't honestly.

weemee

It isn't necessary for both parents to work.
I didn't work for over 20 years, we have 3 dc
My dh earns a low income and we receive FTC/WTC/CB.
We managed to pay the mortgage and buy our house.
We also managed to save enough to buy 2 other houses.
Not everybody's
choice, I realise.
But you can't make the statement you did, because of course there are exceptions to your ruling.

Right back atcha.

Wp have befitted from CB and many still are when families on a lot less aren't.For many of us CB was the only benefit we've ever claimed and it was significant enough to be greatly missed.

Sorry but wp are already getting help from this gov,most are keeping their CB and getting free school meals on top.

I personally think that is enough when you enjoy two salaries,two pensions,two tax thresholds on top.

We are in no situation to fritter money on groups already being catered for when schools are falling to bits,classes growing,NHS crumbling away,families are struggling to pay their rent and feed their children.

It pains me to say clearly labour have learnt sweet fa.

Oh and Janey if the me,me,me sense of entitlement from some working parent posters on this thread isn't self seeking I don't know what is.

Weeme

No, absolutely not. Please don't think I believe this. I was using it as an example because I have heard it so many times on here and was relating it to childcare.
I despise that attitude but have usually heard it from somebody who comes from a dual earning family, expecting subsidised childcare.

Weeme

No, absolutely not. Please don't think I believe this. I was using it as an example because I have heard it so many times on here and was relating it to childcare.
I despise that attitude but have usually heard it from somebody who comes from a dual earning family, expecting subsidised childcare.

God vestand knickers dont know how your child will cope next year with school, play dates, parties, after school clubs and hobbies etc if they cant cope with 25 hours childcare at 3?

morethanpotatoprints do you not see how this might piss people off?

My dh earns a low income and we receive FTC/WTC/CB.We managed to pay the mortgage and buy our house.We also managed to save enough to buy 2 other houses

Some of us are telling you that some people have to have two incomes to survive. Some are telling you that a few hrs of free childcare would allow them to work because right now they can't afford the childcare but they really do need to work. And others are working their butts off with no tax payer money and can't afford to buy even one house let alone 3.

Why should my DH pay tax so you can CHOOSE to stay home, take our money and buy not one house but three. And yet YOU are UPSET that some mothers might get a few hrs childcare because the choose to or more likely have to.

morethanpotatoprints

we will have to agree to disagree....good for you managing to do what you've done. I have only just managed to get on the housing ladder and only did so because it was cheaper than renting. Not in our wildest dreams will we be buying another 2 houses. Nor do we qualify for ANY tax credits. Of course there are exceptions but I think you may be it.... no-one we know is a single earning family.

Also, from your post, I take it that you're talking about what it was like to bring up 3 dc's starting 20 years ago? 20 years ago, I would have been a SAHM.....things now aren't even nearly the same as they were then.

Why do governments always try and socially engineer people's lives? They offer subsidies to first time buyers to buy houses and it just pushes up house prices. They offer tax credits to low income families, when in fact employers should be paying these people a living wage from their own pockets. They offer free child care to families with two working parents, which pushes up prices of child care. They offer universal free school meals which will ultimately put up the cost of school meals. Why can't they just leave us alone and let us keep more of our own money to pay for own lives. At least then it would feel like we really have a choice. All these things cost money too. Where's it going to come from?